https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107946 Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was treated as a procedural time limit intended to curb delay and promote expeditious disposal, but not as an express bar on judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, because procedural rules should advance justice and preserve a fair hearing where no statutory prohibition or stated consequence for default exists. The Court therefore upheld power to accept a written statement filed beyond ninety days in appropriate cases and set aside the refusal to receive it. en-us Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Nov 2025 16:56:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107946 Order VIII Rule 1 CPC was treated as a procedural time limit intended to curb delay and promote expeditious disposal, but not as an express bar on judicial discretion. The Supreme Court held that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, because procedural rules should advance justice and preserve a fair hearing where no statutory prohibition or stated consequence for default exists. The Court therefore upheld power to accept a written statement filed beyond ninety days in appropriate cases and set aside the refusal to receive it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=107946